BIJU SEBASTIAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALUVA

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/2535/2014HC KeralaKLHC01048165201410 March 2014Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala noted the statement filed by the respondent (Income Tax Officer) which clarified that the assessment proceedings were still ongoing and that all relevant materials, including Exhibit P4, were being examined and would be given due consideration. The court observed that the respondent had confirmed that Exhibit P4 was already part of the records. In light of this statement, the court found no further orders to be necessary. The writ petition was accordingly closed. The court did not explicitly rule on the legal question of whether Exhibit P4 constituted a public document, but rather disposed of the matter based on the ITO's assurance of consideration.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Biju Sebastian, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to accept a certified copy of a petition with an affidavit (Exhibit P4) as a public document for assessment purposes under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner also sought a declaration that such a document, certified by a judicial authority, is valid and should be treated as a public document. The ITO filed a statement indicating that the assessment was not yet completed and all gathered evidence was under examination. The statement confirmed that Exhibit P4 was already filed by the petitioner on October 17, 2013, and was part of the records. The ITO assured that due consideration would be given to all materials, including Exhibit P4, during the assessment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a certified copy of a petition with an affidavit, issued by a judicial authority, is a valid public document for the purpose of income tax assessment under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that Exhibit P4, a document certified by a judicial authority, should be accepted as a public document for assessment. The petitioner sought a declaration to this effect. Revenue's Contention: The respondent (ITO) stated that the assessment was ongoing and all evidence, including Exhibit P4, was being examined. The ITO confirmed that Exhibit P4 was already on record and would be considered during the assessment process. No specific argument was made by the revenue regarding the nature of Exhibit P4 as a public document.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/19TH PHALGUNA, 1935 WP(C).No. 2535 of 2014 (N) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- BIJU SEBASTIAN AGED 39 YEARS S/O. SEBASTIAN, KURIEDATH HOUSE, KUTTILI KARA PIRAROOR.P.O., MATTOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683574. BY ADVS.SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR SRI.A.D.SURESH BABU SRI.K.ABDUL NASSAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY SR.COUNSEL SRI.P.K.R.MENON,, GOVT. OF INDIA (TAXES) BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, STANDING CUNSEL, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 2535 of 2014 (N) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21-1-2009 IN O.S. NO. 322/2007 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB JUDGE, NORTH PARAVUR. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 21-1-2009 IN O.S. NO. 322/2007 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUBJUDGE, NORTH PARAVUR. EXHIBIT P3. A TRUE CPY OF THE DOCUMENT DATED 24-10-2009 NO. 3102/2009 OF SUB REGISTRY, CHENGAMANADU. EXHIBIT P4. PETITION WITH AFFIDAVIT DATED 12-8-2013 IN O.S. NO. 322/2007 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS NO. BFIPS0472L DATED 27-12-2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE sou.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.2535 of 2014 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2014 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers : “i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writs order or direction commanding the respondent to accept Ext.P4 certified copy of the petition with affidavit as a public document for the purpose of assessment to be made under section 131 of Income Tax Act, 1961. ii) Declare that a document like Ext.P4 issued as certified by a judicial authority is valid and to be treated as public document for the purpose of production of same before any competent authority. Iii) Issue such other and further writs orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent, the operative portion of which, as contained in paragraph 5, is as follows : “The assessment in this case has not yet been completed. All the evidences gathered are being examined only. The Exhibit P4 filed along with the Affidavit and the endorsement by the Judicial Officer was already filed by Shri Biju Sebastian on 17-10-2013 vide letter of even date filed by his Authorized Representative during the course of hearing on that date and the same is there in the records. On 3-1-2014, when Shri Biju Sebastian appeared in response to the Summons, he had not brought any records or documents. His Authorised Representative. Shri P.J.Babu, FCA on 9-1-2014 produced a copy of the said papers and he was informed that the same was already available in the records and hence there was no need of filing them afresh. Due consideration to all the materials available on record, including the copy of Exhibit P4, would be given while completing the assessment.”

W.P.(C)No.2535 of 2014 2 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. In view of the contents of the statement, particularly in paragraph 5, the learned counsel submits that the same may be recorded and the matter may be disposed of accordingly. On going through paragraph 5 of the statement, it has been made clear by the respondent that the assessment has not been completed and that all the relevant materials including copy of Ext.P4 would be considered while completing the assessment. In the above circumstances no further orders are called for. The writ petition stands closed accordingly. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. AV

More judgments on Section 131

All 4,706 judgments and leading authorities on Section 131 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →